So you pretty much want to silence the whole discussion even though it is a hot topic in MSM? Pretending that there are no issues with immigration is not a solution to any problems.

Who posting here is using Fox news as a source of information?

I do think some people are guilty of exaggerating the problem. I was on the travel thread and some guy said he wouldn't move back to Europe because of Islamic immigration LMAO. You speak to some Americans and they make it out like Europe is a war zone at the minute.

That being said mass immigration is a serous topic and if it is leading to massive upticks in crime, never mind increased threat of terrorism then it is a topic that shouldn't be trivialized especially by people who are the least affected.

Not saying thats you but in the UK rich liberals love to get on their high horses and call working class people who have issues with mass Muslim immigration racist and what not. When its not the rich liberals that have to compete with them for jobs or that would suffer the most if there was indeed an increase in crime as of course no rich liberal is going to live in a place with a lot of Muslim immigrants.

I live in a fairly affluent area so Muslim mass immigration doesn't really affect me that much either way. Would love to hear from someone in the UK or in Europe who lives in a town or in the that has alot of Muslim immigrants to get their view on it to see how it has affected their lives either positively or negatively.

I get the impression that 2+2 is very middle class and liberal so that might be difficult.

I didn't tell you to be silent. You just can't or haven't yet to justify an identified issue/problem with your approach to immigration and refugees; and you appear to have pretended I told you to be silent.

The way you write is so god dam tilting. Marn is writing in his second language and yet he is so much easier to understand. I feel like I have to read your jumble of words 4 or 5 times to decipher what the **** you are talking about most of the time.

Are you suggesting that is not your problem?

Could well be lol...... But I can understand everyone else.

The post I quoted was one of your more coherent ones as well.

Ah so you may have a problem understanding. That's okay. I don't mind.

Do you find it hard to understand that innocent immigrants and refugees exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0p7Oyvql9s

This guy is a journalist on the ground over there. Talks about police, media and state cover ups, and no he does not work for Brietbart. Suggesting that it is not a warzone o like some right wing idiots pretend it is but at the same time there are massive problems even though left wing idiots pretend there are not.


He kind of alludes to a point I made a while ago that the ultra liberal nonsense we see these days is driving people towards the right.

Many of you won't get the particulars here, but you should get the idea. Half the people in Manhattan Beach think that North Redondo is a "no go zone". I'll always take that kind of thing with a huge grain of salt.

Thats better, continue to write smaller sentences you are easier to comprehend this way.

Do I find it hard to understand that innocent immigrants and refugees exist? Thats a straw man and a half you are trying to create. I dont know if its laziness or willful ignorance on your part but read my posts over the last couple of pages and its pretty obvious what my answer to that question is.

Why does everything need to be in absolutes? Isnt it possible to understand that innocent immigrants and refugees exist whilst also understanding that mass Muslim immigration from war torn countries has had SOME negative impacts on host countries?

I see people on both sides doing what your doing. Incapable of applying any sort of nuance into their arguments and making stupid assumptions and creating even stupider straw men arguments.

No where have I come close to suggesting that innocent refugees and immigrants dont exist. I even said that we have a responsibility to take some in on the very last page.

The problem is that people talk about "no go zones" whilst having completely different definitions.

When I hear reasonable people talk about no go zones I assume they are talking about areas that are high in crime and you shouldnt visit at night.

There are plenty of white areas in my city that are no go zones.

There is no straw man. I see you. You made the posts admitting a problem understanding. 'Why I would take unsolicited advice about writing from someone who admits they don't comprehend writing easily?' is a funny proposition, so thanks for the laugh.

I deal in a many sided world and can cite it. Innocent is an absolute when faced with implications with criminality. Negatives happen in countries as is noticeable. You talked out your ass a whole bunch at the end of your post, FYI.

People differ quite about about what they consider safe. I was going to say "reasonable people", but for the most part I think the people who are afraid are unreasonable in that they very cavalierly do things which are much more dangerous.

Most nights I walk my dog along the path in front of the beach in Manhattan Beach. I do this often quite late, up to around midnight, but it's a super rich (median list price for a home is $14.5M) and safe area and I'm walking my german shepherd as well. My neighbor, a full grown 6'5" man, asked me if I feel safe doing that.

Above I quoted my stance on Islamic immigration a few pages back so you cant misrepresent me or create stupid straw men. There is only one person talking out their ass here unless you can show me where I suggested that there were no innocent refugees or immigrants.

Can you expand on the bit in bold , im not sure what point your making. Explain it in leymans terms please.

I don't have to mis-represent you or make straw-mans, because your posts and what you understand about the topics at hand are all that are really relevant in the situation.

I asked if you find it hard to understand that innocent refugees and immigrants exist. Because once it is understood those people exist, then it is understandable their innocence of crime exists. And, then the firm resistance or rejection of association with criminality in immigration approaches can be understood to exist. This helps understand of how well the people involved, the immigrants and refugees, are being portrayed with proportion within narratives about immigration and refugees.

My numbers added above.

The point attempted to be made in the bold is absurd. I think you're saying that since there are some innocent people, we should reject "associating" those innocent people with guilty people by subjecting the innocent people to a negative immigration policy.

I have asked, and I don't believe you have answered, is there any number of rape convictions in a present population above which you would agree to a negative immigration policy for those from the country of origin?

Your argument above appears to say the answer is no. I showed those of Turkish origin have a rape conviction rate of 6/100k/year in Denmark from 2010 to 2014 compared to 0.7/100k/year for those of Danish origin. If the number was 70/100k/year would you support a negative immigration policy for those from Turkey? If it was 7000/100k/year?

You appear to be taking an absurd position. Am I misunderstanding that?

Proportion may appear absurd from a disproportionate position. Are you asking what proportion of rapes in some nation during some time is a decision point of when to say no to refugees who may be fleeing rape?
That looks like an absurd question because, well at first glance, it gives rapists a lot of say in the decision.

Yea when I hear about no go zones I take it with a grain of salt and especially if the source is fox news. However when it is a journalist on the ground who appears to be fairly balanced ill assume its more credible.

He does say these are not areas you cant enter these are areas that you are ill advised to visit .

Spank,

So hypothetically if 50% of Syrians fleeing the country were terrorists, would it be wrong to say no to Syrians fleeing the country because it would give terrorists a lot of say in the matter? Your logic is absurd.

And yes, I am also having a hard time understanding your word salads.

I doubt you have that much trouble understanding and the reasoning about people who exist is plain to see. I see you haven't yet justified the disproportional emphasis on criminality in your approach to immigration and refugees.

Which I can understand hypothetically you may find it absurd your approach has that big of a hole in it.

Anyone care to check out these guys and then tell me illegal immigration is fine.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/rea...30fecd4f03644f

"A NOTORIOUS street gang dubbed “world’s most feared” is allegedly sacrificing underage girls in “Satanic rituals”, US police say.
More than a dozen members of the LA-based, Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha, commonly known as MS-13, have been charged in connection with at least eight murders, many involving high school students, across the US since last month."

lolled (for realz), no, in this circumstance, I'm not asking about being motivated by the status of those fleeing rape. You know very well that is not what I'm asking, but it is amusing, if sometimes tiring, discussing things with you.

I see that you did not answer the question.

It looks like an absurd question. You answer it. While you are at it, justify the proportion of emphasis on criminality in the topic of immigrants and refugees. Can you do better than bald assertions, absurd hypothetical questions, and targeting the messenger?

My original question was what is your number? Crickets...

Then I gave some "hypothetical" numbers, just to see if you have an answer.

Put another way, you appear to be taking the position, I quoted and bolded it above, that no matter how high the rape number is in the existing population, you would never support a negative immigration policy imposed on those seeking to immigrate from the origin country.